Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NIST Big Data Interoperability Framework - Volume - Standards Roadmap
NIST Big Data Interoperability Framework - Volume - Standards Roadmap
Version 2
June 2018
June 2018
ii
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
cost-effective security and privacy of other than national security-related information in Federal
information systems. This document reports on ITL’s research, guidance, and outreach efforts in IT and
its collaborative activities with industry, government, and academic organizations.
Abstract
Big Data is a term used to describe the large amount of data in the networked, digitized, sensor-laden,
information-driven world. While opportunities exist with Big Data, the data can overwhelm traditional
technical approaches and the growth of data is outpacing scientific and technological advances in data
analytics. To advance progress in Big Data, the NIST Big Data Public Working Group (NBD-PWG) is
working to develop consensus on important, fundamental concepts related to Big Data. The results are
reported in the NIST Big Data Interoperability Framework (NBDIF) series of volumes. This volume,
Volume 7, contains summaries of the work presented in the other six volumes, an investigation of
standards related to Big Data, and an inspection of gaps in those standards.
Keywords
Big Data; Big Data Application Provider; Big Data characteristics; Big Data Framework Provider; Big
Data standards; Big Data taxonomy; Data Consumer; Data Provider; Management Fabric; reference
architecture; Security and Privacy Fabric; System Orchestrator; use cases
iii
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
Acknowledgements
This document reflects the contributions and discussions by the membership of the NBD-PWG, co-
chaired by Wo Chang (NIST ITL), Bob Marcus (ET-Strategies), and Chaitan Baru (San Diego
Supercomputer Center; National Science Foundation). For all versions, the Subgroups were led by the
following people: Nancy Grady (SAIC), Natasha Balac (San Diego Supercomputer Center), and Eugene
Luster (R2AD) for the Definitions and Taxonomies Subgroup; Geoffrey Fox (Indiana University) and
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
Tsegereda Beyene (Cisco Systems) for the Use Cases and Requirements Subgroup; Arnab Roy (Fujitsu),
Mark Underwood (Krypton Brothers; Synchrony Financial), and Akhil Manchanda (GE) for the Security
and Privacy Subgroup; David Boyd (InCadence Strategic Solutions), Orit Levin (Microsoft), Don
Krapohl (Augmented Intelligence), and James Ketner (AT&T) for the Reference Architecture Subgroup;
and Russell Reinsch (Center for Government Interoperability), David Boyd (InCadence Strategic
Solutions), Carl Buffington (Vistronix), and Dan McClary (Oracle), for the Standards Roadmap
Subgroup.
The editors for this document were the following:
• Version 1: David Boyd (InCadence Strategic Solutions), Carl Buffington (Vistronix), and
Wo Chang (NIST)
• Version 2: Russell Reinsch (Center for Government Interoperability) and Wo Chang (NIST)
Laurie Aldape (Energetics Incorporated) and Elizabeth Lennon (NIST) provided editorial assistance
across all NBDIF volumes.
NIST SP1500-7, Version 2 has been collaboratively authored by the NBD-PWG. As of the date of this
publication, there are over six hundred NBD-PWG participants from industry, academia, and government.
Federal agency participants include the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S.
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Census, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.
NIST would like to acknowledge the specific contributions a to this volume, during Version 1 and/or
Version 2 activities, by the following NBD-PWG members:
Chaitan Baru Bruno Kelpsas Shawn Miller
University of California, San Microsoft Consultant U.S. Department of Veterans
Diego, Supercomputer Center Affairs
Pavithra Kenjige
David Boyd PK Technologies William Miller
InCadence Strategic Services Brenda Kirkpatrick MaCT USA
Carl Buffington Hewlett-Packard Sanjay Mishra
Vistronix Donald Krapohl Verizon
Wo Chang Augmented Intelligence Quyen Nguyen
NIST NARA
Luca Lepori
Yuri Demchenko Data Hold Russell Reinsch
University of Amsterdam Center for Government
Orit Levin
Interoperability
Kate Dolan Microsoft
CTFC Jan Levine John Rogers
Frank Farance kloudtrack Hewlett-Packard
Farance, Inc. Doug Scrimager
Serge Mankovski
a
“Contributors” are members of the NIST Big Data Public Working Group who dedicated great effort to prepare
and gave substantial time on a regular basis to research and development in support of this document.
iv
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
v
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................VIII
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: NIST BIG DATA REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE TAXONOMY..............................................................................................8
vi
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: SEVEN REQUIREMENTS CATEGORIES AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................9
TABLE 2: MAPPING USE CASE CHARACTERIZATION CATEGORIES TO REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE COMPONENTS AND FABRICS ................12
TABLE 3: DATA CONSUMER REQUIREMENTS-TO-STANDARDS MATRIX ........................................................................................17
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
vii
NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To provide a common Big Data framework, the NIST Big Data Public Working Group (NBD-PWG) is creating
vendor-neutral, technology- and infrastructure-agnostic deliverables, which include the development of
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
consensus-based definitions, taxonomies, a reference architecture, and a roadmap. This document, NIST Big Data
Interoperability Framework (NBDIF): Volume 7, Standards Roadmap, summarizes the work of the other NBD-
PWG subgroups (presented in detail in the other volumes of this series) and presents the work of the NBD-PWG
Standards Roadmap Subgroup. The NBD-PWG Standards Roadmap Subgroup investigated existing standards
that relate to Big Data, initiated a mapping effort to connect existing standards with both Big Data requirements
and use cases (developed by the Use Cases and Requirements Subgroup), and explored gaps in the Big Data
standards.
The NBDIF consists of nine volumes, each of which addresses a specific key topic, resulting from the work of the
NBD-PWG. The nine NBDIF volumes, which can be downloaded from
https://bigdatawg.nist.gov/V2_output_docs.php, are as follows:
• Volume 1, Definitions [1]
• Volume 2, Taxonomies [2]
• Volume 3, Use Cases and General Requirements [3]
• Volume 4, Security and Privacy [4]
• Volume 5, Architectures White Paper Survey [5]
• Volume 6, Reference Architecture [6]
• Volume 7, Standards Roadmap (this volume)
• Volume 8, Reference Architecture Interfaces [7]
• Volume 9, Adoption and Modernization [8]
The NBDIF will be released in three versions, which correspond to the three development stages of the NBD-
PWG work. The three stages aim to achieve the following with respect to the NIST Big Data Reference
Architecture (NBDRA).
Stage 1: Identify the high-level Big Data reference architecture key components, which are technology-,
infrastructure-, and vendor-agnostic;
Stage 2: Define general interfaces between the NBDRA components; and
Stage 3: Validate the NBDRA by building Big Data general applications through the general interfaces.
Potential areas of future work for the Subgroup during Stage 3 are highlighted in Section 1.5 of each volume. The
current effort documented in this volume reflects concepts developed within the rapidly evolving field of Big
Data.
viii
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
There is broad agreement among commercial, academic, and government leaders about the remarkable
potential of Big Data to spark innovation, fuel commerce, and drive progress. Big Data is the common
term used to describe the deluge of data in today’s networked, digitized, sensor-laden, and information-
driven world. The availability of vast data resources carries the potential to answer questions previously
out of reach, including the following:
• How can a potential pandemic reliably be detected early enough to intervene?
• Can new materials with advanced properties be predicted before these materials have ever been
synthesized?
• How can the current advantage of the attacker over the defender in guarding against cybersecurity
threats be reversed?
There is also broad agreement on the ability of Big Data to overwhelm traditional approaches. The growth
rates for data volumes, speeds, and complexity are outpacing scientific and technological advances in data
analytics, management, transport, and data user spheres.
Despite widespread agreement on the inherent opportunities and current limitations of Big Data, a lack of
consensus on some important fundamental questions continues to confuse potential users and stymie
progress. These questions include the following:
• How is Big Data defined?
• What attributes define Big Data solutions?
• What is new in Big Data?
• What is the difference between Big Data and bigger data that has been collected for years?
• How is Big Data different from traditional data environments and related applications?
• What are the essential characteristics of Big Data environments?
• How do these environments integrate with currently deployed architectures?
• What are the central scientific, technological, and standardization challenges that need to be
addressed to accelerate the deployment of robust, secure Big Data solutions?
Within this context, on March 29, 2012, the White House announced the Big Data Research and
Development Initiative. The initiative’s goals include helping to accelerate the pace of discovery in
science and engineering, strengthening national security, and transforming teaching and learning by
improving analysts’ ability to extract knowledge and insights from large and complex collections of
digital data.
Six federal departments and their agencies announced more than $200 million in commitments spread
across more than 80 projects, which aim to significantly improve the tools and techniques needed to
access, organize, and draw conclusions from huge volumes of digital data. The initiative also challenged
industry, research universities, and nonprofits to join with the federal government to make the most of the
opportunities created by Big Data.
Motivated by the White House initiative and public suggestions, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) accepted the challenge to stimulate collaboration among industry professionals to
further the secure and effective adoption of Big Data. As one result of NIST’s Cloud and Big Data Forum
held on January 15–17, 2013, there was strong encouragement for NIST to create a public working group
1
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
for the development of a Big Data Standards Roadmap. Forum participants noted that this roadmap
should define and prioritize Big Data requirements, including interoperability, portability, reusability,
extensibility, data usage, analytics, and technology infrastructure. In doing so, the roadmap would
accelerate the adoption of the most secure and effective Big Data techniques and technology.
On June 19, 2013, the NIST Big Data Public Working Group (NBD-PWG) was launched with extensive
participation by industry, academia, and government from across the nation. The scope of the NBD-PWG
involves forming a community of interests from all sectors—including industry, academia, and
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
2
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
3
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
4
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
2.1 DEFINITIONS
There are two fundamental concepts in the emerging discipline of Big Data that have been used to
represent multiple concepts. These two concepts, Big Data and Data Science, are broken down into
individual terms and concepts in the following subsections. As a basis for discussions of the NBDRA and
related standards, associated terminology is defined in subsequent subsections. The NBDIF: Volume 1,
Definitions explores additional concepts and terminology surrounding Big Data.
b
See NBDIF: Volumes 3, 5, and 6, version 1 for additional information on the use cases, reference architecture
information collection, and development of the NBDRA.
5
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
While the above definition of the data science paradigm refers to learning directly from data, in the Big
Data paradigm, this learning must now implicitly involve all steps in the data life cycle, with analytics
being only a subset. Data science can be understood as the activities happening in the data layer of the
system architecture to extract knowledge from the raw data.
The data life cycle is the set of processes that transform raw data into actionable
knowledge, which includes data collection, preparation, analytics, visualization, and
access.
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
Traditionally, the term analytics has been used as one of the steps in the data life cycle of collection,
preparation, analysis, and action.
Analytics is the synthesis of knowledge from information.
6
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
Similar to the who, what, and where interrogatives used in journalism, the Vs represent checkboxes for
listing the main elements required for narrative storytelling about Big Data. While not precise from a
terminology standpoint, they do serve to motivate discussions that can be analyzed more closely in other
settings such as those involving technical audiences requiring language which more closely corresponds
to the complete corpus of terminology used in the field of study.
Tested against the corpus of use, a definition of Big Data can be constructed by considering the essential
technical characteristics in the field of study. These characteristics tend to cluster into the following five
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
distinct segments:
1. Irregular or heterogeneous data structures, their navigation, query, and data-typing (i.e.,
variety);
2. The need for computation and storage parallelism and its management during processing of
large datasets (i.e., volume);
3. Descriptive data and self-inquiry about objects for real-time decision making (i.e.,
validity/veracity);
4. The rate of arrival of the data (i.e., velocity); and
5. Presentation and aggregation of such datasets (i.e., visualization). [9]
With respect to computation parallelism, issues concern the unit of processing (e.g., thread, statement,
block, process, and node), contention methods for shared access, and begin-suspend-resume-completion-
termination processing.
Descriptive data is also known as metadata. Self-inquiry is often referred to as reflection or introspection
in some programming paradigms.
With respect to visualization, visual limitations concern how much information a human can usefully
process on a single display screen or sheet of paper. For example, the presentation of a connection graph
of 500 nodes might require more than 20 rows and columns, along with the connections or relationships
among each of the pairs. Typically, this is too much for a human to comprehend in a useful way. Big Data
presentation concerns itself with reformulating the information in a way that makes the data easier for
humans to consume.
It is also important to note that Big Data is not necessarily about a large amount of data because many of
these concerns can arise when dealing with smaller, less than gigabyte datasets. Big Data concerns
typically arise in processing large amounts of data because some or all of the four main characteristics
(irregularity, parallelism, real-time metadata, presentation / visualization) are unavoidable in such large
datasets.
2.2 TAXONOMY
The NBD-PWG Definitions and Taxonomy Subgroup developed a hierarchy of reference architecture
components. Additional taxonomy details are presented in the NBDIF: Volume 2, Taxonomy.
Figure 1 outlines potential actors for the seven roles developed by the NBD-PWG Definition and
Taxonomy Subgroup. The dark blue boxes contain the name of the role at the top with potential actors
listed directly below.
7
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
Privacy Architects
actors:
Network Architects
In-house Clusters
Data Centers
Data Provider actors: Reference Cloud Providers
Enterprises
Public Agencies
Architecture
Data Consumer actors:
Researchers and Scientists
Search Engines
Taxonomy End Users
Researchers
Web, FTP and Other Applications
Applications
Network Operators
Systems
End Users
8
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
• Data source requirements (relating to data size, format, rate of growth, at rest, etc.);
• Data transformation provider (i.e., data fusion, analytics);
• Capabilities provider (i.e., software tools, platform tools, hardware resources such as storage and
networking);
• Data consumer (i.e., processed results in text, table, visual, and other formats);
• Security and privacy;
• Life cycle management (i.e., curation, conversion, quality check, pre-analytic processing); and
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
• Other requirements.
The general requirements, created to be vendor-neutral and technology-agnostic, are organized into seven
categories in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Seven Requirements Categories and General Requirements
DATA SOURCE REQUIREMENTS (DSR)
DSR-1 Needs to support reliable real-time, asynchronous, streaming, and batch processing to collect data from
centralized, distributed, and cloud data sources, sensors, or instruments.
DSR-2 Needs to support slow, bursty, and high-throughput data transmission between data sources and
computing clusters.
DSR-3 Needs to support diversified data content ranging from structured and unstructured text, document,
graph, web, geospatial, compressed, timed, spatial, multimedia, simulation, and instrumental data.
TRANSFORMATION PROVIDER REQUIREMENTS (TPR)
TPR-1 Needs to support diversified compute-intensive, analytic processing, and machine learning techniques.
TPR-2 Needs to support batch and real-time analytic processing.
TPR-3 Needs to support processing large diversified data content and modeling.
TPR-4 Needs to support processing data in motion (e.g., streaming, fetching new content, tracking).
CAPABILITY PROVIDER REQUIREMENTS (CPR)
CPR-1 Needs to support legacy and advanced software packages (software).
CPR-2 Needs to support legacy and advanced computing platforms (platform).
CPR-3 Needs to support legacy and advanced distributed computing clusters, co-processors, input output
processing (infrastructure).
CPR-4 Needs to support elastic data transmission (networking).
CPR-5 Needs to support legacy, large, and advanced distributed data storage (storage).
CPR-6 Needs to support legacy and advanced executable programming: applications, tools, utilities, and
libraries (software).
DATA CONSUMER REQUIREMENTS (DCR)
DCR-1 Needs to support fast searches (~0.1 seconds) from processed data with high relevancy, accuracy, and
recall.
DCR-2 Needs to support diversified output file formats for visualization, rendering, and reporting.
DCR-3 Needs to support visual layout for results presentation.
DCR-4 Needs to support rich user interface for access using browser, visualization tools.
DCR-5 Needs to support high-resolution, multidimensional layer of data visualization.
DCR-6 Needs to support streaming results to clients.
SECURITY AND PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS (SPR)
SPR-1 Needs to protect and preserve security and privacy of sensitive data.
SPR-2 Needs to support sandbox, access control, and multilevel, policy-driven authentication on protected
data.
9
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
Additional information about the Use Cases and Requirements Subgroup, use case collection, analysis of
the use cases, and generation of the use case requirements are presented in the NBDIF: Volume 3, Use
Cases and General Requirements document.
10
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
3. The use of multiple Big Data sources not originally intended to be used together can compromise
privacy, security, or both. Approaches to de-identify personally identifiable information (PII) that
were satisfactory prior to Big Data may no longer be adequate, while alternative approaches to
protecting privacy are made feasible. Although de-identification techniques can apply to data
from single sources as well, the prospect of unanticipated multiple datasets exacerbates the risk of
compromising privacy.
4. An increased reliance on sensor streams, such as those anticipated with the Internet of Things
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
(IoT; e.g., smart medical devices, smart cities, smart homes) can create vulnerabilities that were
more easily managed before amassed to Big Data scale.
5. Certain types of data thought to be too big for analysis, such as geospatial and video imaging, will
become commodity Big Data sources. These uses were not anticipated and/or may not have
implemented security and privacy measures.
6. Issues of veracity, context, provenance, and jurisdiction are greatly magnified in Big Data.
Multiple organizations, stakeholders, legal entities, governments, and an increasing number of
citizens will find data about themselves included in Big Data analytics.
7. Volatility is significant because Big Data scenarios envision that data is permanent by default.
Security is a fast-moving field with multiple attack vectors and countermeasures. Data may be
preserved beyond the lifetime of the security measures designed to protect it.
8. Data and code can more readily be shared across organizations, but many standards presume
management practices that are managed inside a single organizational framework.
11
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
reference architecture survey, and developed the NBDRA conceptual model. The NBDIF: Volume 3, Use
Cases and General Requirements document contains details of the Subgroup’s work.
The use case characterization categories (from NBDIF: Volume 3, Use Cases and General Requirements)
are listed below on the left and were used as input in the development of the NBDRA. Some use case
characterization categories were renamed for use in the NBDRA. Table 2 maps the earlier use case terms
directly to NBDRA components and fabrics.
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
12
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
Note: None of the terminology or diagrams in these documents is intended to be normative or to imply
any business or deployment model. The terms provider and consumer as used are descriptive of general
roles and are meant to be informative in nature.
The NBDRA is organized around five major roles and multiple sub-roles aligned along two axes
representing the two Big Data value chains: Information Value (horizontal axis) and Information
Technology (IT; vertical axis). Along the information axis, the value is created by data collection,
integration, analysis, and applying the results following the value chain. Along the IT axis, the value is
created by providing networking, infrastructure, platforms, application tools, and other IT services for
hosting of and operating the Big Data in support of required data applications. At the intersection of both
axes is the Big Data Application Provider role, indicating that data analytics and its implementation
provide the value to Big Data stakeholders in both value chains.
The five main NBDRA roles, shown in Figure 2 and discussed in detail in Section 3, represent different
technical roles that exist in every Big Data system. These roles are the following:
• System Orchestrator,
• Data Provider,
• Big Data Application Provider,
• Big Data Framework Provider, and
• Data Consumer.
13
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
The two fabric roles shown in Figure 2 encompassing the five main roles are:
• Management, and
• Security and Privacy.
These two fabrics provide services and functionality to the five main roles in the areas specific to Big
Data and are crucial to any Big Data solution.
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
The DATA arrows in Figure 2 show the flow of data between the system’s main roles. Data flows
between the roles either physically (i.e., by value) or by providing its location and the means to access it
(i.e., by reference). The SW arrows show transfer of software tools for processing of Big Data in situ. The
Service Use arrows represent software programmable interfaces. While the main focus of the NBDRA is
to represent the run-time environment, all three types of communications or transactions can happen in
the configuration phase as well. Manual agreements (e.g., service-level agreements) and human
interactions that may exist throughout the system are not shown in the NBDRA.
The roles in the Big Data ecosystem perform activities and are implemented via functional components.
In system development, actors and roles have the same relationship as in the movies, but system
development actors can represent individuals, organizations, software, or hardware. According to the Big
Data taxonomy, a single actor can play multiple roles, and multiple actors can play the same role. The
NBDRA does not specify the business boundaries between the participating actors or stakeholders, so the
roles can either reside within the same business entity or can be implemented by different business
entities. Therefore, the NBDRA is applicable to a variety of business environments, from tightly
integrated enterprise systems to loosely coupled vertical industries that rely on the cooperation of
independent stakeholders. As a result, the notion of internal versus external functional components or
roles does not apply to the NBDRA. However, for a specific use case, once the roles are associated with
specific business stakeholders, the functional components would be considered as internal or external—
subject to the use case’s point of view.
The NBDRA does support the representation of stacking or chaining of Big Data systems. For example, a
Data Consumer of one system could serve as a Data Provider to the next system down the stack or chain.
The NBDRA is discussed in detail in the NBDIF: Volume 6, Reference Architecture. The Security and
Privacy Fabric, and surrounding issues, are discussed in the NBDIF: Volume 4, Security and Privacy.
Once established, the definitions and reference architecture formed the basis for evaluation of existing
standards to meet the unique needs of Big Data and evaluation of existing implementations and practices
as candidates for new Big Data-related standards. In the first case, existing efforts may address standards
gaps by either expanding or adding to the existing standard to accommodate Big Data characteristics or
developing Big Data unique profiles within the framework of the existing standards.
14
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
industry consortia, and open source organizations. These organizations may operate differently and focus
on different aspects, but they all have a stake in Big Data.
Integrating additional Big Data initiatives with ongoing collaborative efforts is a key to success.
Identifying which collaborative initiative efforts address architectural requirements and which
requirements are not currently being addressed is a starting point for building future multi-stakeholder
collaborative efforts. Collaborative initiatives include, but are not limited to the following:
• Subcommittees and working groups of American National Standards Institute (ANSI);
• Accredited standards development organizations (SDOs; the de jure standards process);
• Industry consortia;
• Reference implementations; and
• Open source implementations.
Some of the leading SDOs and industry consortia working on Big Data-related standards include the
following:
• IEC—International Electrotechnical Commission, http://www.iec.ch/;
• IEEE—Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, https://www.ieee.org/index.html, de jure
standards process;
• IETF—Internet Engineering Task Force, https://www.ietf.org/;
• INCITS—International Committee for Information Technology Standards, http://www.incits.org/,
de jure standards process;
• ISO—International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html, de jure
standards process;
• OASIS—Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards,
https://www.oasis-open.org/, Industry consortium;
• OGC®—Open Geospatial Consortium, http://www.opengeospatial.org/, Industry consortium;
• OGF—Open Grid Forum, https://www.ogf.org/ogf/doku.php, Industry consortium; and
• W3C—World Wide Web Consortium, http://www.w3.org/, Industry consortium.
The organizations and initiatives referenced in this document do not form an exhaustive list. It is
anticipated that as this document is more widely distributed, more standards efforts addressing additional
segments of the Big Data mosaic will be identified.
There are many government organizations that publish standards relative to their specific problem areas.
The U.S. Department of Defense alone maintains hundreds of standards. Many of these are based on other
standards (e.g., ISO, IEEE, ANSI) and could be applicable to the Big Data problem space. However, a
fair, comprehensive review of these standards would exceed the available document preparation time and
may not be of interest to most of the audience for this report. Readers interested in domains covered by
the government organizations and standards, are encouraged to review the standards for applicability to
their specific needs.
Open source implementations are providing useful new technologies used either directly or as the basis
for commercially supported products. These open source implementations are not just individual
products. Organizations will likely need to integrate an ecosystem of multiple products to accomplish
15
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
their goals. Because of the ecosystem complexity and the difficulty of fairly and exhaustively reviewing
open source implementations, many such implementations are not included in this section. However, it
should be noted that those implementations often evolve to become the de facto reference
implementations for many technologies.
The NBD-PWG embarked on an effort to compile a list of standards that are applicable to Big Data. The
goal is to assemble Big Data-related standards that may apply to a large number of Big Data
implementations across several domains. The enormity of the task precludes the inclusion of every
standard that could apply to every Big Data implementation. Appendix B presents a partial list of existing
standards from the above listed organizations that are relevant to Big Data and the NBDRA. Determining
the relevance of standards to the Big Data domain is challenging since almost all standards in some way
deal with data. Whether a standard is relevant to Big Data is generally determined by the impact of Big
Data characteristics (i.e., volume, velocity, variety, and variability) on the standard or, more generally, by
the scalability of the standard to accommodate those characteristics. A standard may also be applicable to
Big Data depending on the extent to which that standard helps to address one or more of the Big Data
characteristics. Finally, a number of standards are also very domain- or problem-specific and, while they
deal with or address Big Data, they support a very specific functional domain; developing even a
marginally comprehensive list of such standards would require a massive undertaking involving subject
matter experts in each potential problem domain, which is currently beyond the scope of the NBD-PWG.
In selecting standards to include in Appendix B, the working group focused on standards that met the
following criteria:
• Facilitate interfaces between NBDRA components;
• Facilitate the handling of data with one or more Big Data characteristics; and
• Represent a fundamental function needing to be implemented by one or more NBDRA
components.
Appendix B represents a portion of potentially applicable standards from a portion of contributing
organizations working in the Big Data domain.
As most standards represent some form of interface between components, the standards table in Appendix
C indicates whether the NBDRA component would be an Implementer or User of the standard. For the
purposes of this table, the following definitions were used for Implementer and User.
Implementer: A component is an implementer of a standard if it provides services based
on the standard (e.g., a service that accepts Structured Query Language [SQL]
commands would be an implementer of that standard) or encodes or presents data based
on that standard.
User: A component is a user of a standard if it interfaces to a service via the standard or
if it accepts/consumes/decodes data represented by the standard.
While the above definitions provide a reasonable basis for some standards, the difference between
implementation and use may be negligible or nonexistent.
16
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
requirements to existing standards. The approach links a requirement with related standards by setting the
requirement code and description in the same row as related standards descriptions and standards codes.
Table 3: Data Consumer Requirements-to-Standards Matrix
Requirement Requirement Description Standard Description Standard
DCR-1 Fast search To be completed in version 3
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
The work illustrated in Table 3 is representative of the work that should be continued with the other
identified requirements groups (i.e., TPR, CPR, DCR, SPR, LMR, and OR) listed in Table 1 and
explained fully in the NBDIF: Volume 3, Use Cases and General Requirements. The unpopulated
requirements of DCR-1, DCR-2, and DCR-3 reflect only the unfinished nature of this topic, as of the date
of this publication, due to limited available resources of the NBD-PWG, and should not be interpreted as
standards gaps in the technology landscape. As more areas of the resulting matrix are completed, the
matrix will provide a visual summary of the areas where standards overlap, and most importantly,
highlight gaps in the standards catalog as of the date of publication.
17
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
In addition to mapping standards that relate to the overall subject of a use case, specific portions of the
original use cases (i.e., the categories of Current Solutions, Data Science, and Gaps) were mapped to
standards. The detailed mapping provides additional granularity in the view of domain-specific standards.
The data from the Current Solutions, Data Science, and Gaps categories, along with the subcategory data,
was extracted from the raw use cases in the NBDIF: Volume 3, Use Cases and Requirements document.
This data was tabulated with a column for standards related to each subcategory. The process of use case
subcategory mapping was initiated with two use cases, Use Case 8 and Use Case 15, as evidenced below.
The Standards Roadmap Subgroup might continue the process in version 3 of this document and requests
the assistance of the public in this in-depth analysis.
Table 5 demonstrates how the web search use case is divided into sub-task components and how related
standards can be mapped to each sub-component.
Table 5: Excerpt from Use Case Document M0165—Detailed Mapping to Standards
Information from Use Case 8 Related
Category Subcategory Use Case Data Standards
18
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
19
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
20
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
standards using a voluntary consensus standards development process that includes the
following attributes or elements:
i. Openness: The procedures or processes used are open to interested parties. Such parties are
provided meaningful opportunities to participate in standards development on a
nondiscriminatory basis. The procedures or processes for participating in standards development
and for developing the standard are transparent.
ii. Balance: The standards development process should be balanced. Specifically, there should be
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
meaningful involvement from a broad range of parties, with no single interest dominating the
decision making.
iii. Due process: Due process shall include documented and publicly available policies and
procedures, adequate notice of meetings and standards development, sufficient time to review
drafts and prepare views and objections, access to views and objections of other participants, and
a fair and impartial process for resolving conflicting views.
iv. Appeals process: An appeals process shall be available for the impartial handling of procedural
appeals.
v. Consensus: Consensus is defined as general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity. During the
development of consensus, comments and objections are considered using fair, impartial, open,
and transparent processes.” [12]
21
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
A number of technology areas are considered to be of significant importance and are expected to have
sizeable impacts heading into the next decade. Any list of important items will obviously not satisfy every
community member; however, the potential gaps in Big Data standardization provided in this section
describe broad areas that may be of interest to SDOs, consortia, and readers of this document.
The list below was produced through earlier work by an ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC1)
Study Group on Big Data to serve as a potential guide to ISO in their establishment of Big Data standards
activities. [13] The 16 potential Big Data standardization gaps, identified by the study group, described
broad areas that may be of interest to this community. These gaps in standardization activities related to
Big Data are in the following areas:
1. Big Data use cases, definitions, vocabulary, and reference architectures (e.g., system, data,
platforms, online/offline);
2. Specifications and standardization of metadata including data provenance;
3. Application models (e.g., batch, streaming);
4. Query languages including non-relational queries to support diverse data types (e.g., XML,
Resource Description Framework [RDF], JSON, multimedia) and Big Data operations (i.e.,
matrix operations);
5. Domain-specific languages;
6. Semantics of eventual consistency;
7. Advanced network protocols for efficient data transfer;
8. General and domain-specific ontologies and taxonomies for describing data semantics including
interoperation between ontologies;
9. Big Data security and privacy access controls;
10. Remote, distributed, and federated analytics (taking the analytics to the data) including data and
processing resource discovery and data mining;
11. Data sharing and exchange;
12. Data storage (e.g., memory storage system, distributed file system, data warehouse);
13. Human consumption of the results of Big Data analysis (e.g., visualization);
14. Energy measurement for Big Data;
15. Interface between relational (i.e., SQL) and non-relational (i.e., Not Only or No Structured Query
Language [NoSQL]) data stores; and
16. Big Data quality and veracity description and management (includes master data management
[MDM]).
Version 3 of this volume intends to investigate some of the 16 gaps identified above in further detail and
may add more gaps in standardization activities to the list of 16. The following sub-group of the 16 gaps
was targeted for deeper analysis in Version 2 to explore individual issues of the gap and the impact future
standards could have on the area.
• Gap 2: Specifications of metadata
• Gap 4: Non-relational database query, search and information retrieval (IR)
• Gap 10: Analytics
• Gap 11: Data sharing and exchange
22
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
Metadata is one of the most significant of the Big Data problems. Metadata is the only way of finding
items, yet 80% of data lakes are not applying metadata effectively. [14] Metadata layers are ways for
lesser technical users to interact with data mining systems. Metadata layers also provide a means for
bridging data stored in different locations, such as on premise and in the cloud. A definition and concept
description of metadata is provided in the NBDIF: Volume 1, Definitions document.
Metadata issues have been addressed in ISO 2709-ANSI/NISO Z39.2 (implemented as MARC21) and
cover not only metadata format but, using the related Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, content and
input guidance for using the standard.
The metadata management field appears to now be converging with master data management [MDM] and
somewhat also with analytics. Metadata management facilitates access control and governance, change
management, and reduces complexity and the scope of change management, with the top use case likely
to be data governance. [14] Demand for innovation in the areas of automating search capabilities such as
semantic enrichment during load and inclusion of expert / community enrichment / crowd governance,
and machine learning, remains strong and promises to continue.
Organizations that have existing metadata management systems will need to match any new metadata
systems to the existing system, paying special attention to federation and integration issues. Organizations
initiating new use cases or projects have much more latitude to investigate a range of potential solutions.
Perhaps a more attainable goal for standards development will be to strive for standards for supporting
interoperability beyond the defining of ontologies, or XML, where investment of labor concentrates on
the semantic mappings instead of syntactic mapping in smaller blocks that can be put together to form a
larger picture, for example, to define conveying the semantics of who, what, where, and when of an event
and translation of an individual user’s terms (in order to create a module that can then be mapped to
another standard).
23
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
information retrieval activities or using a search function for analysis of data that resides within an
organization’s storage repositories.
In web search, casual consumers are familiar with the experience of web search technologies, namely,
instant query expansion, ranking of results, and rich snippets and knowledge graph containers. Casual
users are also familiar with standard file folder functionality for information management in personal
computers. For large enterprises and organizations needing search functionality over documents, deeper
challenges persist and are driving significant demand for enterprise-grade solutions.
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
Web Search
Web search engines of 2017 provide a substantial service to citizens but have been identified as applying
bias over how and what search results are delivered back to the user. The surrender of control that citizens
willingly trade in exchange for the use of free web search services is widely accepted as a worthwhile
exchange for the user; however, future technologies promise even more value for the citizens who will
search across the rapidly expanding scale of the world wide web. The notable case in point is commonly
referred to as the semantic web.
Current semantic approaches to searching almost all require content indexing as a measure for controlling
the enormous corpus of documents that reside online. In attempting to tackle this problem of enormity of
scale via automation of content indexing, solutions for the semantic web have proven to be difficult to
program, meaning that the persistent challenges for development of a semantic web continue to delay its
development.
Two promising approaches for developing the semantic web are ontologies and linked data technologies;
however, neither approach has proven to be a complete solution. Standard Ontological alternatives, OWL
and RDF, which would benefit from the addition of linked data, suffer from an inability to effectively use
linked data technology. Reciprocally, linked data technologies suffer from the inability to effectively use
ontologies.
Not apparent to developers is how standards in these areas would be an asset to the concept of an all-
encompassing semantic web, or how they can be integrated to improve retrieval over that scale of data.
Using Search for Data Analysis
A steady increase in the belief that logical search systems are the superior method for information
retrieval on data at rest can be seen in the market. Generally speaking, analytics search indexes can be
constructed more quickly than natural language processing (NLP) search systems, although NLP
technologies requiring semi-supervision can have unacceptable (20%) error rates.
Currently, Contextual Query Language (CQL) [15], declarative logic programming languages, and RDF
[16] query languages currently serve as search query language / NoSQL language structure de facto
standards.
Future work on this volume proposes to go deeper into discussing technologies’ strengths in data
acquisition, connectors, and ingest; and critical capabilities including speed and scale. For the most part,
however, any product’s underlying technology will likely be document, metadata, or numerically focused,
not all three. Architecturally speaking, indexing is the centerpiece. Metadata provides context; machine
learning can provide enrichment.
After indexing, query planning functionalities are of primary importance. The age of Big Data has applied
a downward pressure on the use of standard indexes, which are good for small queries but have three
issues: they cause slow loading; ad hoc queries require advance column indexing; and lastly, the constant
updating that is required to maintain indexes quickly becomes prohibitively expensive. One open source
search technology provides an incremental indexing technique that solves some part of this problem.
24
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
Generally speaking, access and IR functions will remain areas of continual work in progress. In some
cases, silo architectures for data are a necessary condition for running an organization, legal and security
reasons being the most obvious. Proprietary, patented access methods are a barrier to building connectors
required for true federated search. The future goal for many communities and enterprises in this area is
the development of unified information access solutions (i.e., UIMA). Unified indexing presents an
alternative to challenges in federation.
Incredibly valuable external data is underused in most search implementations because of the lack of an
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
appropriate architecture. Frameworks that would separate content acquisition from content processing by
putting a data buffer (a big copy of the data) between them have been suggested as a potential solution to
this problem. With this framework, one could gather data but defer the content processing decisions until
later. Documents would have to be pre-joined when they are processed for indexing, and large,
mathematically challenging algorithms for relevancy and complex search security requirements (such as
encryption) could be run separately at index time.
With such a framework, search could potentially become superior to SQL for online analytical processing
(OLAP) and data warehousing. Search can be faster, more powerful, scalable, and schema free. Records
can be output in XML and JSON and then loaded into a search engine. Fields can be mapped as needed.
Tensions remain between any given search system’s functional power and its ease of use. Discovery,
initially relegated to the limited functionality of facets in a sidebar, have historically been loaded when a
search system returned a result set. Emerging technologies are focusing on supplementing user
experience. Content Representation standards were initially relied upon in the Wide Area Information
Servers (WAIS) system initially but newer systems must contend with the fact that there are now
hundreds of formats. In response, open source technologies promise power and flexibility to customize,
but the promise comes with a high price tag of either being technically demanding and requiring skilled
staff to setup and operate, or requiring a third party to maintain.
Another area ripe for development is compatibility with different extract, transform, and load (ETL)
techniques. Standards for connectors to content management systems, collaboration apps, web portals,
social media apps, customer relationship management systems, file systems, and databases are needed.
Standards for content processing are still needed to enable compatibility with normalizing techniques,
records merging formats, external taxonomies or semantic resources, regular expression, or use of
metadata for supporting interface navigation functionality.
Standards for describing relationships between different data sources, and standards for maintaining
metadata context relationships will have substantial impact. Semantic platforms to enhance information
discovery and data integration applications may provide solutions in this area; RDF and ontology
mapping seem to be the front runners in the race to provide semantic uniformity. RDF graphs are leading
the way for visualization, and ontologies have become accepted methods for descriptions of elements.
25
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
With the cloud computing revolution and the publication of open source tools to help setup and execute
distributed computing environments, both the scope of analytics and the analytical methods available to
statisticians changed, resulting in a new analytical landscape. This new analytical landscape left a gap in
associated standards. Continual changes in the analytical landscape due to advances in Big Data
technology are only worsening this standards gap.
Some examples of the changes to analytics due to Big Data are the following:
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
• Allowing larger and larger sample sizes to be processed and thus changing the power and
sampling error of statistical results;
• Scaling out instead of scaling up, due to Big Data technology, has driven down the cost of storing
large datasets;
• Increasing the speed of computationally expensive machine learning algorithms so that they are
practical for analysis needs;
• Allowing in-memory analytics to achieve faster results;
• Allowing streaming or real-time analytics to apply statistical learning models in real time;
• Allowing enhanced visualization techniques for improved understanding;
• Cloud-based analytics made acquiring massive amounts of computing power for short periods of
time financially accessible to businesses of all sizes and even individuals;
• Driving the creation of tools to make unstructured data appear structured for analysis;
• Shifting from an operational focus to an analytical focus with databases specifically designed for
analytics;
• Allowing the analysis of more unstructured (NoSQL) data;
• Shifting the focus on scientific analysis from causation to correlation;
• Allowing the creation of data lakes, where the data model is not predefined prior to creation or
analysis;
• Enhanced machine learning algorithms—training and test set sizes have been increased due to
Big Data tools, leading to more accurate predictive models;
• Driving the analysis of behavioral data—Big Data tools have provided the computational capacity
to analyze behavioral datasets such as web traffic or location data; and
• Enabling deep learning techniques.
With this new analytical landscape comes the need for additional knowledge beyond just statistical
methods. Statisticians are required to have knowledge of which algorithms scale well and which
algorithms deal with particular dataset sizes more efficiently.
For example, without Big Data tools, a random forest may be the best classification algorithm for a
particular application provided project time constraints. However, with the computational resources
afforded by Big Data, a deep learning algorithm may become the most accurate choice that satisfies the
same project time constraints. Another prominent example is the selection of algorithms which handle
streaming data well.
Standardizing analytical techniques and methodologies that apply to Big Data will have an impact on the
accuracy, communicability, and overall effectiveness of analyses completed in accordance with this
NBDIF.
26
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
appropriate) leveraging existing institutional repositories, public and academic archives, as well as
community and discipline-based repositories of scientific and technical data, software, and publications.
From the new global Internet, to Big Data economy opportunities in Internet of Things, smart cities, and
other emerging technical and market trends, it is critical to have a standard data infrastructure for Big
Data that is scalable and can apply the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability)
data principle between heterogeneous datasets from various domains without worrying about data source
and structure.
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
A very important component as part of the standard data infrastructure is the definition of new Persistent
Identifier (PID) types. PIDs such as Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are already widely used on the
Internet as durable, long-lasting references to digital objects such as publications or datasets. An obvious
application of PIDs in this context is to use them to store a digital object’s location and state information
and other complex core metadata. In this way, the new PID types can serve to hold a combination of
administration, specialized, and/or extension metadata. Other functional information, such as the
properties and state of a repository or the types of access protocols it supports, can also be stored in these
higher layers of PIDs.
Because the PIDs are themselves digital objects, they can be stored in specialized repositories, similar to
metadata registries that can also expose services to digital object users and search portals. In this role, the
PID types and the registries that manage them can be viewed as an abstraction layer in the system
architecture, and could be implemented as middleware designed to optimize federated search, assist with
access control, and speed the generation of cross-repository inventories. This setting can enable data
integration/mashup among heterogeneous datasets from diversified domain repositories and make data
discoverable, accessible, and usable through a machine-readable and actionable standard data
infrastructure.
Organizations wishing to publish open data will find that there are certain legal constraints and licensing
standards to be conscious of; data may not necessarily be 100% Open in every sense of the word. There
are, in fact, varying degrees to the openness of data; various licensing standards present a spectrum of
licensing options, where each type allows for slightly differing levels of accommodations. Some licensing
standards, including the Open Government License, provide truly open standards for data sharing.
Organizations wishing to publish open data must also be aware that there are some situations where the
risks of having the data open, outweigh the benefits; and where certain licensing options are not
appropriate, including situations when interoperability with other datasets is negatively affected.
27
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
5 INTEGRATION
The term integration can refer to a broad range of activities or functions related to data processing. Those
activities or functions can include systems integration or application integration middleware (business line
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
28
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
Connectivity is normally the first step in data processing, and support for all types of connections and all
types of data are the dreams of Big Data users everywhere. Most off-the-shelf products offer a stable of
connectors as part of the package. However, the ‘usability’ of a connector is just as important as the
availability of the connector. The diversity of data types and data sources frequently means that custom
middleware code must be written in order for a connector to work. Truly modern data acquisition designs
provide easier-to-use graphic interfaces that abstract the complexities of programming a connector, away
from the casual user. As the range of sources for data capture widens, the probability is greater that a
more capable MDM or governance solution would be appropriate.
Aside from the types of data being captured, the modes of interaction or ‘speed’ of the data may dictate
the type of integration required. The data warehouse is the traditional use case for data integration. In this
scenario, large batches of transactions are extracted from a location point where they are at-rest, then
processed in a single run that can take hours to complete. In some Big Data processing scenarios, users
want immediate access to data that is streaming in-motion, so the system delivers results in real time, by
capturing and processing small chunks of data within seconds. Real-time systems are more difficult to
build and implement.
DATA CLEANSING
Amidst most of the use cases for data integration is an absolute need to maximize data quality, which
helps to ensure accuracy. Data must be cleaned to provide quality and accurate analytic outputs. This is
especially true in cases where automated integration systems are in play.
One data cleansing design currently in practice promotes the creation of callable business rules, where,
for example, the name and address attributes of a data record are checked upon data entry into an
application, such as a customer relationship management system, which then uses custom exits to initiate
a low-latency data quality process. This design requires hand-coded extensions for added flexibility over
the base ETL tool, which must be carefully constructed to not violate the vendor’s support of the base
ETL tool.
Data preparation has been cited as consuming the majority of time and expense to process data. While
quality is not mandatory for integration, it is commonly the most important element. Unstructured data is
especially difficult to transform. Graphical interfaces, sometimes referred to as self-service interfaces,
provide data preparation features which offer a promise of assisting business / casual users to explore
data, transform and blend datasets, and perform analytics on top of a well-integrated infrastructure. The
value of making data available to as many people as possible has been frequently noted.
DATA VIRTUALIZATION
Another area for consideration in Big Data systems implementation is that of data virtualization, or
‘federation.’ As one of the basic building blocks of a modern integration program, data virtualization is all
about moving analysis to the data, in contrast to pulling data from a storage location into a data
warehouse for analysis. Data virtualization programs are also applicable in small dataset data science
scenarios.
SUPPORTING MDM
29
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
The boundaries between integration solutions and MDM solutions are increasingly blurred every year,
with several functional sub-components having significant overlap. This makes sense if MDM is viewed
as a quality function which is also a single point-of-truth concept for data entities.
Some current MDM tool designs use visual interfaces that allow everyone to use the same tool, see
lineage and provenance of the processing, and reach a higher level of trust with the data. Using the same
interface for system requirements gathering and translation to developers also reduces confusion in
projects and increases the chance of successful implementations. Metadata management techniques are
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
SUPPORTING GOVERNANCE
One perspective is that governance plays an integration role in the life cycle of Big Data, serving as the
glue that binds the primary stages of the life cycle together. From this perspective, acquisition, awareness,
and analytics of the data compose the full life cycle. The acquisition and awareness portions of this life
cycle deal directly with data heterogeneity problems. Awareness, in this case, would generally be that the
system, which acquires heterogeneous data from external sources, must have a contextual semantic
framework (i.e., model) for integration of that data to make it usable.
The key areas where standards can promote the usability of data in this context are global resource
identifiers, a model for storing data relationship classifications (such as RDF) and the creation of resource
relationships. [18] Hence information architecture plays an increasingly important role. The awareness
part of the cycle is also where the framework for identifying patterns in the data is constructed, and where
metadata processing is managed. It is quite possible that this phase of the larger life cycle is the area most
ready for innovation, although the analytics phase may be the part of the cycle currently undergoing the
greatest transformation.
As the wrapper or glue that holds the parts of the Big Data life cycle together, a viable governance
program will likely require a short list of properties for assuring the novelty, quality, utility, and validity
of its data. As an otherwise equal partner in the Big Data life cycle, governance is not a technical function
as the others, but rather more like a policy function that should reach into the cycle at all phases.
In some sense, governance issues present more serious challenges to organizations than other integration
topics listed at the beginning of this section. Better data acquisition, consistency, sharing, and interfaces
are highly desired. However, the mere mention of the term governance often induces thoughts of pain and
frustration for an organization’s management staff. Some techniques in the field have been found to have
higher rates of end user acceptance and thus satisfaction of the organizational needs contained within the
governance programs.
One of the more popular methods for improving governance-related standardization on datasets and
reports is through a requirement that datasets and reports go through a review process that ensures that the
data conforms to a handful of standards covering data ownership and aspects of IT. Upon passage of
review, the data is given a ‘watermark’ which serves as an organization-wide seal of approval that the
dataset or the report has been vetted and certified to be appropriate for sharing and decision making.
This process is popular partly because it is rather quick and easy to implement, minimizing push back
from employees who must adopt this new process. The assessment for a watermark might include checks
for appropriate or accurate calculations or metrics applied to the data, a properly structured dataset for
additional processing, and application of proper permissions controls for supporting end user access. A
data container, such as a data mart, can also serve as a form of data verification. [19]
DATA MIGRATION
The opportunity presented in data migration scenarios is to ensure data quality and, additionally, to clean
and enrich the data to improve it during the migration process. A common-sense approach here is to apply
business rules during the migration project, that leverage metadata to synchronize new data and update it
30
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
as it is offloaded to a new system. Multi-model database technologies promise a reduction in the level of
migration that is required for data processing.
explication here. Although it may be interesting to note that metadata technologies can perform some
CDC functionality.
Real-time CDC, however, is new to Big Data use cases and reflects a need for change broker or message
queue technologies, which are ripe areas for standardization. Not surprisingly, data quality is an area of
concern, as anyone can appreciate the unfortunate results if inaccurate data is propagated from one
application within a department, across an entire enterprise. Best practices employ a CDC and message
queue and trigger technology.
SYSTEM INTEGRATION
One of the most important trends in systems integration involves what is referred to as hybrid integration.
iPaaS solutions made particularly successful inroads into use cases for connecting on-premise systems to
cloud applications (hybrid system integration), which is significant, because with Big Data more and
more data lives in the cloud. The success of hybrid cloud technologies set the stage for the evolution of a
newer category of technologies known as middleware as a service (MWaaS). MWaaS can be said to be
based on API, business-to-business application integration, and cloud and fog system integration
capabilities. As a consequence of the ‘gravity’ of data shifting to the cloud, MWaaS implementations are
expected to make up larger shares of system integration programs in the near future. [21]
METADATA
31
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
Metadata is a pervasive requirement for integration programs and new standards for managing
relationships between data sources; and automated discovery of metadata will be key to future Big Data
projects.
In the worst cases, different departments within an organization often choose ETL tools without
considering integration with other internal systems. This silo effect, coupled with the pooling of disparate
systems that occurs after a business merger or acquisition, results in organizations that have several ETL
tools in use that cannot interoperate. This situation often has a fragmenting effect on metadata programs
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
32
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
Appendix A: Acronyms
ACRL Association of College and Research Libraries
AMQP Advanced Message Queuing Protocol
ANSI American National Standards Institute
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
A-1
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
A-2
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
A-3
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
A-4
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
ISO/IEC 9075-* ISO/IEC 9075 defines SQL. The scope of SQL is the definition of data structure and the operations on data stored
in that structure. ISO/IEC 9075-1, ISO/IEC 9075-2 and ISO/IEC 9075-11 encompass the minimum requirements
of the language. Other parts define extensions.
ISO/IEC Technical Report (TR) 9789 Guidelines for the Organization and Representation of Data Elements for Data Interchange
ISO/IEC 11179-* The 11179 standard is a multipart standard for the definition and implementation of Metadata Registries. The
series includes the following parts:
• Part 1: Framework
• Part 2: Classification
• Part 3: Registry metamodel and basic attributes
• Part 4: Formulation of data definitions
• Part 5: Naming and identification principles
• Part 6: Registration
ISO/IEC 10728-* Information Resource Dictionary System Services Interface
ISO/IEC 13249-* Database Languages – SQL Multimedia and Application Packages
B-1
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
B-2
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
B-3
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
W3C Document Object Model (DOM) This series of specifications define the DOM, a platform- and language-neutral interface that allows programs and
Level 1 Specification scripts to dynamically access and update the content, structure and style of HyperText Markup Language (HTML)
and XML documents.
W3C XQuery 3.0 The XQuery specifications describe a query language called XQuery, which is designed to be broadly applicable
across many types of XML data sources.
W3C XProc This specification describes the syntax and semantics of XProc: An XML Pipeline Language, a language for
describing operations to be performed on XML documents.
W3C XML Encryption Syntax and This specification covers a process for encrypting data and representing the result in XML.
Processing Version 1.1
W3C XML Signature Syntax and This specification covers XML digital signature processing rules and syntax. XML Signatures provide integrity,
Processing Version 1.1 message authentication, and/or signer authentication services for data of any type, whether located within the
XML that includes the signature or elsewhere.
W3C XPath 3.0 XPath 3.0 is an expression language that allows the processing of values conforming to the data model defined in
[XQuery and XPath Data Model (XDM) 3.0]. The data model provides a tree representation of XML documents
as well as atomic values and sequences that may contain both references to nodes in an XML document and
atomic values.
W3C XSL Transformations (XSLT) This specification defines the syntax and semantics of XSLT 2.0, a language for transforming XML documents
Version 2.0 into other XML documents.
W3C Efficient XML Interchange This specification covers the EXI format. EXI is a very compact representation for the XML Information Set that
(EXI) Format 1.0 (Second Edition) is intended to simultaneously optimize performance and the utilization of computational resources.
W3C RDF Data Cube Vocabulary The Data Cube vocabulary provides a means to publish multidimensional data, such as statistics on the Web using
the W3C RDF standard.
W3C Data Catalog Vocabulary DCAT is an RDF vocabulary designed to facilitate interoperability between data catalogs published on the Web.
(DCAT) This document defines the schema and provides examples for its use.
W3C HTML5 A vocabulary and This specification defines the 5th major revision of the core language of the World Wide Web—HTML.
associated APIs for HTML and
XHTML
W3C Internationalization Tag Set The ITS 2.0 specification enhances the foundation to integrate automated processing of human language into core
(ITS) 2.0 Web technologies and concepts that are designed to foster the automated creation and processing of multilingual
Web content.
W3C OWL 2 Web Ontology Language The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with
formally defined meaning.
W3C Platform for Privacy Preferences The P3P enables Web sites to express their privacy practices in a standard format that can be retrieved
(P3P) 1.0 automatically and interpreted easily by user agents.
B-4
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
W3C Protocol for Web Description POWDER—the Protocol for Web Description Resources—provides a mechanism to describe and discover Web
Resources (POWDER) resources and helps the users to decide whether a given resource is of interest.
W3C Provenance Provenance is information about entities, activities, and people involved in producing a piece of data or thing,
which can be used to form assessments about its quality, reliability or trustworthiness. The Provenance Family of
Documents (PROV) defines a model, corresponding serializations and other supporting definitions to enable the
inter-operable interchange of provenance information in heterogeneous environments such as the Web.
W3C Rule Interchange Format (RIF) RIF is a series of standards for exchanging rules among rule systems, in particular among Web rule engines.
W3C Service Modeling Language This specification defines the SML, Version 1.1 used to model complex services and systems, including their
(SML) 1.1 structure, constraints, policies, and best practices.
W3C Simple Knowledge Organization This document defines the SKOS, a common data model for sharing and linking knowledge organization systems
System Reference (SKOS) via the Web.
W3C Simple Object Access Protocol SOAP is a protocol specification for exchanging structured information in the implementation of web services in
(SOAP) 1.2 computer networks.
W3C SPARQL 1.1 SPARQL is a language specification for the query and manipulation of linked data in a RDF format.
W3C Web Service Description This specification describes the WSDL Version 2.0, an XML language for describing Web services.
Language (WSDL) 2.0
W3C XML Key Management This standard specifies protocols for distributing and registering public keys, suitable for use in conjunction with
Specification (XKMS) 2.0 the W3C Recommendations for XML Signature [XML-SIG] and XML Encryption [XML-Enc]. The XKMS
comprises two parts:
• The XML Key Information Service Specification (X-KISS)
• The XML Key Registration Service Specification (X-KRSS).
OGC® OpenGIS® Catalogue Services This series of standard covers Catalogue Services based on ISO19115/ISO19119 are organized and implemented
Specification 2.0.2 -ISO Metadata for the discovery, retrieval and management of data metadata, services metadata and application metadata.
Application Profile
OGC® OpenGIS® GeoAPI The GeoAPI Standard defines, through the GeoAPI library, a Java language API including a set of types and
methods which can be used for the manipulation of geographic information structured following the specifications
adopted by the Technical Committee 211 of the ISO and by the OGC®.
B-5
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
OGC® OpenGIS® GeoSPARQL The OGC® GeoSPARQL standard supports representing and querying geospatial data on the Semantic Web.
GeoSPARQL defines a vocabulary for representing geospatial data in RDF, and it defines an extension to the
SPARQL query language for processing geospatial data.
OGC® OpenGIS® Geography Markup The GML is an XML grammar for expressing geographical features. GML serves as a modeling language for
Language (GML) Encoding Standard geographic systems as well as an open interchange format for geographic transactions on the Internet.
OGC® Geospatial eXtensible Access The Policy Language introduced in this document defines a geo-specific extension to the XACML Policy
Control Markup Language Language, as defined by the OASIS standard eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML), Version
(GeoXACML) Version 1 2.0”
OGC® network Common Data Form netCDF is a set of software libraries and self-describing, machine-independent data formats that support the
(netCDF) creation, access, and sharing of array-oriented scientific data.
OGC® Open Modelling Interface The purpose of the OpenMI is to enable the runtime exchange of data between process simulation models and also
Standard (OpenMI) between models and other modelling tools such as databases and analytical and visualization applications.
OGC® OpenSearch Geo and Time This OGC standard specifies the Geo and Time extensions to the OpenSearch query protocol. OpenSearch is a
Extensions collection of simple formats for the sharing of search results.
OGC® Web Services Context The OGC® OWS Context was created to allow a set of configured information resources (service set) to be passed
Document (OWS Context) between applications primarily as a collection of services.
OGC® Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) This series of standards support interoperability interfaces and metadata encodings that enable real time
integration of heterogeneous sensor webs. These standards include a modeling language (SensorML), common
data model, and sensor observation, planning, and alerting service interfaces.
OGC® OpenGIS® Simple Features Describes the common architecture for simple feature geometry and is also referenced as ISO 19125. It also
Access (SFA) implements a profile of the spatial schema described in ISO 19107:2003.
OGC® OpenGIS® Georeferenced Table This standard is the specification for a TJS that defines a simple way to describe and exchange tabular data that
Joining Service (TJS) Implementation contains information about geographic objects.
Standard
OGC® OpenGIS® Web Coverage Defines a protocol-independent language for the extraction, processing, and analysis of multidimensional gridded
Processing Service Interface (WCPS) coverages representing sensor, image, or statistics data.
Standard
OGC® OpenGIS® Web Coverage This document specifies how a WCS offers multidimensional coverage data for access over the Internet. This
Service (WCS) document specifies a core set of requirements that a WCS implementation must fulfill.
B-6
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
OGC® Web Feature Service (WFS) 2.0 The WFS standard provides for fine-grained access to geographic information at the feature and feature property
Interface Standard level. This International Standard specifies discovery operations, query operations, locking operations, transaction
operations and operations to manage stored, parameterized query expressions.
OGC® OpenGIS® Web Map Service The OpenGIS® WMS Interface Standard provides a simple HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) interface for
(WMS) Interface Standard requesting geo-registered map images from one or more distributed geospatial databases.
OGC® OpenGIS® Web Processing The OpenGIS® WPS Interface Standard provides rules for standardizing how inputs and outputs (requests and
Service (WPS) Interface Standard responses) for geospatial processing services, such as polygon overlay. The standard also defines how a client can
request the execution of a process, and how the output from the process is handled. It defines an interface that
facilitates the publishing of geospatial processes and clients’ discovery of and binding to those processes.
OASIS AS4 Profile of ebMS 3.0 v1.0 Standard for business to business exchange of messages via a web service platform.
OASIS Advanced Message Queuing The AMQP is an open internet protocol for business messaging. It defines a binary wire-level protocol that allows
Protocol (AMQP) Version 1.0 for the reliable exchange of business messages between two parties.
OASIS Application Vulnerability This specification describes a standard XML format that allows entities (such as applications, organizations, or
Description Language (AVDL) v1.0 institutes) to communicate information regarding web application vulnerabilities.
OASIS Biometric Identity Assurance This OASIS BIAS profile specifies how to use XML (XML10) defined in ANSI INCITS 442-2010—BIAS to
Services (BIAS) Simple Object Access invoke SOAP -based services that implement BIAS operations.
Protocol (SOAP) Profile v1.0
OASIS Content Management The CMIS standard defines a domain model and set of bindings that include Web Services and ReSTful AtomPub
Interoperability Services (CMIS) that can be used by applications to work with one or more Content Management repositories/systems.
OASIS Digital Signature Service This specification describes two XML-based request/response protocols - a signing protocol and a verifying
(DSS) protocol. Through these protocols a client can send documents (or document hashes) to a server and receive back
a signature on the documents; or send documents (or document hashes) and a signature to a server, and receive
back an answer on whether the signature verifies the documents.
OASIS Directory Services Markup The DSML provides a means for representing directory structural information as an XML document methods for
Language (DSML) v2.0 expressing directory queries and updates (and the results of these operations) as XML documents
OASIS ebXML Messaging Services These specifications define a communications-protocol neutral method for exchanging electronic business
messages as XML.
OASIS ebXML RegRep ebXML RegRep is a standard defining the service interfaces, protocols and information model for an integrated
registry and repository. The repository stores digital content while the registry stores metadata that describes the
content in the repository.
B-7
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
OASIS ebXML Registry Information The Registry Information Model provides a blueprint or high-level schema for the ebXML Registry. It provides
Model implementers with information on the type of metadata that is stored in the Registry as well as the relationships
among metadata Classes.
OASIS ebXML Registry Services An ebXML Registry is an information system that securely manages any content type and the standardized
Specification metadata that describes it. The ebXML Registry provides a set of services that enable sharing of content and
metadata between organizational entities in a federated environment.
OASIS eXtensible Access Control The standard defines a declarative access control policy language implemented in XML and a processing model
Markup Language (XACML) describing how to evaluate access requests according to the rules defined in policies.
OASIS Message Queuing Telemetry MQTT is a Client Server publish/subscribe messaging transport protocol for constrained environments such as for
Transport (MQTT) communication in Machine to Machine and Internet of Things contexts where a small code footprint is required
and/or network bandwidth is at a premium.
OASIS Open Data (OData) Protocol The OData Protocol is an application-level protocol for interacting with data via RESTful interfaces. The protocol
supports the description of data models and the editing and querying of data according to those models.
OASIS Search Web Services (SWS) The OASIS SWS initiative defines a generic protocol for the interaction required between a client and server for
performing searches. SWS define an Abstract Protocol Definition to describe this interaction.
OASIS Security Assertion Markup The SAML defines the syntax and processing semantics of assertions made about a subject by a system entity.
Language (SAML) v2.0 This specification defines both the structure of SAML assertions, and an associated set of protocols, in addition to
the processing rules involved in managing a SAML system.
OASIS SOAP-over-UDP (User This specification defines a binding of SOAP to user datagrams, including message patterns, addressing
Datagram Protocol) v1.1 requirements, and security considerations.
OASIS Solution Deployment This specification defines schema for two XML document types: Package Descriptors and Deployment
Descriptor Specification v1.0 Descriptors. Package Descriptors define characteristics of a package used to deploy a solution. Deployment
Descriptors define characteristics of the content of a solution package, including the requirements that are relevant
for creation, configuration and maintenance of the solution content.
OASIS Symptoms Automation This standard defines reference architecture for the Symptoms Automation Framework, a tool in the automatic
Framework (SAF) Version 1.0 detection, optimization, and remediation of operational aspects of complex systems,
OASIS Topology and Orchestration The concept of a “service template” is used to specify the “topology” (or structure) and “orchestration” (or
Specification for Cloud Applications invocation of management behavior) of IT services. This specification introduces the formal description of
Version 1.0 Service Templates, including their structure, properties, and behavior.
OASIS Universal Business Language The OASIS UBL defines a generic XML interchange format for business documents that can be restricted or
(UBL) v2.1 extended to meet the requirements of particular industries.
B-8
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
OASIS Universal Description, The focus of UDDI is the definition of a set of services supporting the description and discovery of (1) businesses,
Discovery and Integration (UDDI) organizations, and other Web services providers, (2) the Web services they make available, and (3) the technical
v3.0.2 interfaces which may be used to access those services.
OASIS Unstructured Information The UIMA specification defines platform-independent data representations and interfaces for text and multi-
Management Architecture (UIMA) modal analytics.
v1.0
OASIS Unstructured Operation UOML is interface standard to process unstructured document; it plays the similar role as SQL to structured data.
Markup Language (UOML) v1.0 UOML is expressed with standard XML.
OASIS/W3C WebCGM v2.1 Computer Graphics Metafile (CGM) is an ISO standard, defined by ISO/IEC 8632:1999, for the interchange of
2D vector and mixed vector/raster graphics. WebCGM is a profile of CGM, which adds Web linking and is
optimized for Web applications in technical illustration, electronic documentation, geophysical data visualization,
and similar fields.
OASIS Web Services Business Process This standard defines a language for specifying business process behavior based on Web Services. WS-BPEL
Execution Language (WS-BPEL) v2.0 provides a language for the specification of Executable and Abstract business processes.
OASIS/W3C - Web Services MUWS defines how an IT resource connected to a network provides manageability interfaces such that the IT
Distributed Management (WSDM): resource can be managed locally and from remote locations using Web services technologies.
Management Using Web Services
(MUWS) v1.1
OASIS WSDM: Management of Web This part of the WSDM specification addresses management of the Web services endpoints using Web services
Services (MOWS) v1.1 protocols.
OASIS Web Services Dynamic This specification defines a discovery protocol to locate services. The primary scenario for discovery is a client
Discovery (WS-Discovery) v1.1 searching for one or more target services.
OASIS Web Services Federation This specification defines mechanisms to allow different security realms to federate, such that authorized access
Language (WS-Federation) v1.2 to resources managed in one realm can be provided to security principals whose identities and attributes are
managed in other realms.
OASIS Web Services Notification WSN is a family of related specifications that define a standard Web services approach to notification using a
(WSN) v1.3 topic-based publish/subscribe pattern.
IETF Simple Network Management SNMP is a series of IETF sponsored standards for remote management of system/network resources and
Protocol (SNMP) v3 transmission of status regarding network resources. The standards include definitions of standard management
objects along with security controls.
B-9
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
IETF Extensible Provisioning Protocol This IETF series of standards describes an application-layer client-server protocol for the provisioning and
(EPP) management of objects stored in a shared central repository. Specified in XML, the protocol defines generic
object management operations and an extensible framework that maps protocol operations to objects.
National Council for Prescription Drug Electronic data exchange standard used in medication reconciliation process. Medication history, prescription info
Programs (NCPDPD) Script standard (3), census update.
ASTM Continuity of Care Record Electronic data exchange standard used in medication reconciliation process. CCR represents a summary format
(CCR) for the core facts of a patient’s dataset.
Healthcare Information Technology Electronic data exchange standard used in medication reconciliation process. Summary format for CCR document
Standards Panel (HITSP) C32 HL7 structure.
Continuity of Care Document (CCD)
PMML Predictive Model Markup XML based data handling. Mature standard defines and enables data modeling, and reliability and scalability for
Language custom deployments. Pre / post processing, expression of predictive models.
Dash7 Wireless sensor and actuator protocol; home automation, based on ISO IEC 18000-7
H.265 High efficiency video coding (HEVC) MPEG-H part 2. Potential compression successor to Advanced Video
Coding (AVC) H.264. Streaming video.
VP9 Royalty free codec alternative to HEVC. Successor to VP8, competitor to H.265. Streaming video.
X.509 Public key encryption for securing email and web communication.
MDX Multidimensional expressions (MDX) became the standard for OLAP query.
NIEM-HLVA National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) High-Level Version Architecture (HLVA): Specifies the NIEM
version architecture.
NIEM-MPD NIEM Model Package Description (MPD) Specification: Specifies rules for organizing and packaging MPDs in
general and IEPDs specifically.
NIEM-Code List Specifications NIEM Code Lists Specification: Establishes methods for using code list artifacts with NIEM information
exchange specifications.
NIEM Conformance Specification Defines general conformance to NIEM.
B-10
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
NIEM-CTAS NIEM Conformance Target Attribute Specification (CTAS): Specifies XML attributes to establish a claim that the
document conforms to a set of conformance targets.
NIEM-NDR NIEM Naming and Design Rules (NDR): Specifies principles and enforceable rules for NIEM-conformant
schema documents, instance XML documents and data components.
Non-Normative Guidance in Using Non-Normative Guidance in Using NIEM with JSON: Guidance for using NIEM with JSON-LD specified by
NIEM with JSON RFC4627. Note: A normative NIEM-JSON specification is under development and scheduled for release in Dec
2017.
DCC Data Package, version 1.0.0-
beta.17 (a specification) released
March of 2016
DCC Observ-OM \ Integrated search. LGPLv3 Open Source licensed
B-11
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
C-1
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
C-2
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
C-3
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
C-4
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
C-5
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
C-6
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
D-1
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
Whereas the task of categorization is immense and resources are limited, completion of this table relies on new and renewed contributions from
the public. The NBD-PWG invites all interested parties to assist in the categorization effort.
D-2
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
D-3
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
D-4
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
D-5
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
D-6
____________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
D-7
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
Appendix E: References
[1] W. Chang and NIST Big Data Public Working Group, “NIST Big Data Interoperability
Framework: Volume 1, Definitions (SP1500-1),” 2015.
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
[2] W. Chang and NIST Big Data Public Working Group, “NIST Big Data Interoperability
Framework: Volume 2, Big Data Taxonomies (SP1500-2),” 2015.
[3] W. Chang and NIST Big Data Public Working Group, “NIST Big Data Interoperability
Framework: Volume 3, Use Cases and General Requirements (SP1500-3),” 2015.
[4] W. Chang and NIST Big Data Public Working Group, “NIST Big Data Interoperability
Framework: Volume 4, Security and Privacy (SP1500-4),” 2015.
[5] W. Chang and NIST Big Data Public Working Group, “NIST Big Data Interoperability
Framework: Volume 5, Architectures White Paper Survey (SP1500-5),” 2015.
[6] W. Chang and NIST Big Data Public Working Group, “NIST Big Data Interoperability
Framework: Volume 6, Reference Architecture (SP1500-6),” 2015.
[7] W. Chang and NIST Big Data Public Working Group, “NIST Big Data Interoperability
Framework: Volume 8, Reference Architecture Interface (SP1500-9),” 2017.
[8] W. Chang and NIST Big Data Public Working Group, “NIST Big Data Interoperability
Framework: Volume 9, Adoption and Modernization (SP1500-10),” 2017.
[9] F. Farance, “Adapted from the Refactoring Metadata Status Report,” 2016.
[10] Cloud Security Alliance, “Expanded Top Ten Big Data Security and Privacy Challenges,” Cloud
Security Alliance, 2013. [Online]. Available:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/bdwg/Expanded_Top_Ten_Big_Data_Secu
rity_and_Privacy_Challenges.pdf.
[11] A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, and R. Silverman, Encyclopedia of Distributed Learning,
Annotated. SAGE Publications, 2003.
[12] EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Office of Management and Budget, “Federal
Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity
Assessment Activities,” OMB Circ. A-119, vol. 81 FR 4673, p. 43, 2016.
[13] ISO/IEC JTC 1: Information Technology, “Big Data, Preliminary Report 2014,” 2014.
[14] G. De Simoni and R. Edjlali, “Magic Quadrant for Metadata Management Solutions,” Gart. Repr.,
pp. 1–26, 2017.
[15] The Library of Congress, “CQL: Contextual Query Language,” Search/Retrival via URL, 2013.
[Online]. Available: http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/cql/contextSets/. [Accessed: 02-Jul-2017].
[16] W3C, “Resource Description Framework (RDF),” Semantic Web, 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://www.w3.org/RDF/. [Accessed: 02-Jul-2017].
[17] SAS, “The new data integration landscape: Moving beyond ad hoc ETL to an enterprise data
integration strategy.”
[18] K. Cagle, “Understanding the Big Data Life-Cycle,” 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/four-keys-big-data-life-cycle-kurt-cagle. [Accessed: 10-Jun-
E-1
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ NIST BIG DATA INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: VOLUME 7, STANDARDS ROADMAP
2017].
[19] W. W. Eckerson, “How to Create a Culture of Governance,” The New BI Leader, 2017. [Online].
Available: https://www.eckerson.com/articles/how-to-create-a-culture-of-governance. [Accessed:
10-Jun-2017].
[20] Kofax, “Integrating Data Sources is an Expensive Challenge for the Financial Services Sector
(White Paper),” 2015.
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-7r1
[21] OVUM, “Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Enterprise Mobility Management Solution, 2017–
18,” 2017.
E-2